Peace was found on Thursday in a recent controversy from Hell between Nike and conceptual art collective MSCHF over the so-called "Satan Shoes", designed in collaboration with singer Lil Nas X.
Released at the end of March, the modified pair of Nike Air Max 97 featured a pentagram pendant and a reference to a verse from the Gospel of Luke ("I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven", 10:18), and contained 60cc of red ink, visible from the transparent section of the sole and "one drop of human blood".
Limited to 666 pairs retailing at $1,018, the sneakers sparked outrage when Lil Nas X announced their release, even though they were sold out as soon as they hit the web. Religious and conservative consumers, thinking this was an official collaboration with Nike, called for a boycott, and Nike, that never showed anything against MSCHF's previous "Jesus Shoes", distanced itself from the product and sued MSCHF for "trademark infringement and dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition".
At the beginning of April, US district judge Eric Komitee gave Nike a temporary restraining order preventing manufacturer MSCHF from shipping out the 666 pairs of shoes to customers.
Eventually Nike Inc. reached a settlement on Thursday and MSCHF accepted Nike's request to voluntarily recall to buy back not only the 665 sneakers sold (sneakers number 666th were supposed to be a giveaway, but they were scrapped after the judge's temporary order), but also any Jesus Shoes, for their original retail prices to remove them in this way from circulation.
"Purchasers who choose not to return their shoes and later encounter a product issue, defect, or health concern should contact MSCHF, not Nike .The parties are pleased to put this dispute behind them," Nike concluded in its official statement. Nothing was added about people who may own the shoes, who may be taking pictures of themselves wearing the sneakers and who may be posting the images on social media. For what regards the by now ultra-rare "Satan Shoes" you can currently find some pairs on eBay, with offers going from $3,000 to $20,000.
Now while this case from Hell has closed, the satanic footwear has opened many debates in the creative world: practices such as remixing, collaging, reclaiming and repurposing certain fashion items have always been around. Certain products or works of art wouldn't exist if designers and artists hadn't dismembered certain pieces and re-collaged them in a different configuration. In the last 20 years fashion designers have transformed from Takeji Hirakawa's "Fashion DJs" into professional "Fashion Remixers" and we all know that, quite often, a remix is better than the original version.
We have seen Martin Margiela repurposing a wide variety of materials throughout the decades, and Marine Serre's designs often include regenerated and recycled materials. Now in these cases the designers mainly employed fabrics, bedsheets, socks or towels that did not feature any specific trademarked logo, so they avoided enraging any specific company. MSCHF's shoes incorporated Nike's iconic Swoosh logo, but in a way it was probably the association with Satan that, more than anything else, scared Nike (otherwise they would have immediately sued MSCHF when the collective released the "Jesus Shoes").
There are two essential problems to consider now: we mentioned one in the previous post about the "Satan Shoes", as MSCHF accepted Nike's request, from now on other brands that may see their products being repurposed by artists and designers and may not like their interpretation, may simply sue them. Yet this is a double-edged sword: take the case of the hip hop tailor of Harlem, Dapper Dan, who used to create in the '80s DIY designs from fabrics covered in brand logos such as Gucci or Vuitton.
At the time the designer played a dangerously ironic game with luxury products and logos. Sued for his bootlegged pieces, after Alessandro Michele at Gucci "homaged" one of his jackets, Dapper Dan rose to fame again, becoming a Gucci icon and star collaborator, ending up proving that quite often bootlegs are more original and desirable than the original products and therefore more fun for consumers. This can be said for example about La Californienne's repurposed Rolex and Cartier watches with their colourful faces and bands that look infinitely more desirable than the usual models (Rolex was upset about the company and sued them - see Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Reference Watch LLC d/b/a La Californienne; Rolex won this trademark infringing case, but you can still buy some of these repurposed models on Farfetch). You can indeed bet that, even though Rolex won, in few years' time both the luxury watch brands repurposed by La Californienne will start making more colourful watches.
The second point to consider is that too often when an anonymous designer or an artist uses a famous brand's logo in a controversial way, that specific brand immediately distances itself, launching a legal action against them. But when that powerful brand decides to do the same, they make their design pass for an experimental project or for a tribute or homage (this is often what happens when a fashion house copies a traditional garment).
An example? Nike recently did an unauthorised experimental version of its Air Force 1 sneakers inspired by the white, red and blue USPS cardboard boxes and with a patch reproducing the U.S. Postal Service's Priority Mail shipping label, but the shoes weren't the result of any special collaboration.
USPS issued indeed a statement at the beginning of April stating, "The Postal Service, which receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations, protects its intellectual property. Officially licensed products sold in the marketplace expand the affinity for the Postal Service brand and provide incremental revenue through royalties that directly support it. Sales of unauthorized and unlicensed products deny support to the hardworking women and men of the Postal Service."
"This is an unfortunate situation where a large brand such as Nike, which aggressively protects its own intellectual property, has chosen to leverage another brand for its own gain. The Postal Service is disappointed in Nike's lack of response to repeated attempts to come to a solution. The Postal Service will take whatever actions it deems necessary to protect its valuable IP rights."
So it seems that when Nike borrows from other companies for its "experimental sneakers" it "pays homage" or "gets inspired"; when independent artists customise a pair of Nike shoes and resell them, they infringe Nike's copyright. In conclusion, what we learnt from the "Satan Shoes" case is that hypocrisy is rife in the fashion industry.
For what regards Nike, though, it's about time for them to change their strategy: some companies started side projects in which they give out products to get them repurposed. Nike could do the same: launching an incubator for dedicated artists' projects and special one-off designs that may give new life to old pieces and innovative perspectives on the brand.
There is a great interest in sneakers (auction houses constantly organise sneaker auctions to attract younger customers and collectors) so they could start with shoes. Such a venture would be beneficial as in this way they would avoid destroying unwanted stock, offering at the same time fun and unique designs to consumers. Nike and other prominent brands should indeed start realising that it's better to join rebellious and creative minds rather than suing them: they do have indeed bright ideas that generate consumer desire and involvement and that's exactly what these brands are looking for.
Comments